Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subfamily Amorphicolinae Burckhardt, Ouvrard & Percy, 2021 Comment. Burckhardt et al. (2021) erected a new subfamily, Amorphicolinae, for the genus Amorphicola based on the clade grouping and phylogenetic topology of the mitogenome analyses of Percy et al. (2018). The new genus described here was also included in the phylogenetic analyses of Percy et al. (2018), but the genus was not described at the time of the revised classification and the definition of subfamily Amorphicolinae was based solely on Amorphicola. Here, the subfamily definition is broadened to reflect characteristics of both genera in Amorphicolinae, as follows: Adult. Amorphicola and Danieliana share head characteristics as described in Burckhardt et al. (2021) except the antenna length which is 1–1.5x head width in Amorphicola and longer, 1.5–1.6x head width, in Danieliana; in addition, there are differences in the relative lengths of the antennal segments which are either with segment 3 longer than segments 7 or 8 (in Amorphicola) or segment 3 shorter than segment 7, and segments 4–6 and 8 subequal (in Danieliana). Thorax and leg characters are as described in Burckhardt et al. (2021), except metatibia is either without (in Amorphicola) or with a small genual spine (in Danieliana), and metatibia apex either bearing 4 irregularly spaced, sclerotised, apical spurs (in Amorphicola) or 5 grouped (1+3+1) sclerotised apical spurs (in Danieliana). Forewing and hindwing as described in Burckhardt et al. (2021). Male proctiger as described in Burckhardt et al. (2021); paramere complex, in profile either axe or hammer-shaped with several sclerotised peg setae on the inner face (in Amorphicola) or long and sinuous with many long, extended setae on the inner face (in Danieliana). Fifth instar immature. As described in Burckhardt et al. (2021). Systematics. The majority of adult and all immature characteristics for Amorphicolinae given in Burckhardt et al. (2021) are shared by Amorphicola and Danieliana. The main shared characteristics are in the general structure of the adult head, thorax, legs, male proctiger, and elongate male subgenital plate, and in the immature structure and chaetotaxy. The main differences between the genera being antenna length, relative lengths of antennal segments, size of forewing cells cu 1 and m 1, presence/absence of a genual spine on metatibia and number of sclerotised apical metatibial spurs, and the shape of the paramere. Some of the morphological characters of Danieliana that differentiate it from Amorphicola, suggest an affiliation with Ciriacreminae Enderlein, 1910 (see comment under generic description below), particularly the genus Isogonoceraia Tuthill, 1964, which includes two species in South America (White & Hodkinson 1980; Burckhardt & Queiroz 2012) and one in Micronesia (Tuthill 1964). Isogonoceraia is also the only member of Ciriacreminae known to have caesalpinoid legume (referring to Caesalpinieae and Cassieae clades of Fabaceae) host plants (Ouvrard 2022), which is the same host plant group as Danieliana. Characteristics shared between some members of Amorphicolinae and Ciriacreminae may reflect shared ancestry (e.g., in the root of subfamilies Amorphicolinae, Ciriacreminae and Psyllinae Latreille, 1807), as the two subfamilies are phylogenetically close, or they may be homoplasious and converged in the two groups. Adult key to genera (and tribes) of subfamily Amorphicolinae 1 Forewing with relatively low and wide cell cu 1 and low cell m 1 (ratios CUR>1.5; MR>0.6); antenna about as long as or slightly longer than head width (1–1.5x), segment 3 longer than segment 7; genae extremely short and directed downward; base of metatibia without genual spine; paramere, in lateral profile, axe or hammer-shaped; proximal aedeagus segment not inflated distally; host plant genus Amorpha ...................... Amorphicola (tribe Amorphicolini trib. nov.), North America 2 Forewing with relatively high and narrow cell cu 1 and high cell m 1 (ratios CUR <1.5; MR <0.6); antenna length equal to or more than 1.5x head width (1.5–1.6x) (Fig. 1I), segment 3 shorter than segment 7 (Fig. 1J); genae moderately short and directed upward (Fig. 1H); base of metatibia with small genual spine (Fig. 1K); paramere, in lateral profile, long and slender (Figs. 2A, 2B); proximal aedeagus segment inflated distally (Figs. 2A, 2D); host plant genus Caesalpinia ............................................................................. Danieliana gen. nov. (tribe Danielianini trib. nov.), Taiwan
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 0.011 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".